Is Sea Level Rise ‘Global’ If Roughly 50% Of

Gauges Show Stable To Falling Sea Levels?

A few years ago, a comprehensive analysis of selection bias in tide gauge measurements between 1807-2010 indicated that (a) sea levels are only rising at a rate of about 1 mm/yr (as of 2010), and (b) a total of 65% of the world’s tide gauges have recorded stable to falling sea levels.

“Tide gauges dating back to the 19th century were located where sea levels happened to be rising. Data reconstructions based on these tide gauges are therefore likely to over-estimate sea level rise.”

“We therefore study individual tide gauge data on sea levels from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) during 1807 – 2010 without recourse to data reconstruction. Although mean sea levels are rising by 1mm/year, sea level rise is local rather than global, and is concentrated in the Baltic and Adriatic seas, South East Asia and the Atlantic coast of the United States. In these locations, covering 35 percent of tide gauges, sea levels rose on average by 3.8mm/year. Sea levels were stable in locations covered by 61 percent of tide gauges, and sea levels fell in locations covered by 4 percent of tide gauges. In these locations sea levels fell on average by almost 6mm/year.”

Of the remaining 225 tide gauges in the NOAA database, there are at least 100 located in regions where sea levels are stable (no significant change in either direction) or falling. A graphical illustration of these non-trend tide gauge measurements is provided below.

With 45% to 65% of tide gauge measurements from across the globe indicating that there has been no significant sea level trend in the last 30 to 50 years (at least), why is it considered accurate to claim that sea level rise is occurring globally, rather than in some localities?

What an interesting comment, because I would have thought that sea level rise was the only issue of concern.

Obviously there can be no concern that temperatures become hotter by 2 or 4 or 6 degrees. All life can cope with that as it has in the past, and is demonstrated by the fact that life regularly exists in places where temperatures touch 50 degC. We can easily adjust our clothing (don’t forget that the only reason we wear clothes is because the planet is far too cold for us, so we have had to adapt ourselves in order to survive) and install aircon as necessary.

Everything we know about life on planet Earth and the history of civilisation points to more warmth the better. It is no coincidence that the largest land animals are found in the equitorial region, and as one goes to higher latitudes animal get smaller. No animal can live even in the Arctic, those that do either migrate if they can or go into hibernation and hope to wake up once more when the chills of winter are over. For many animals, the last time they see daylight is when the sun sets in late Autumn. The only reason the polar bear can live there is that it feeds off the sea, not off the land, and it also semi hibernates.

The history of civilisation and advancement of man shows a temperature dependent pattern, so for example, Egyptians, Minoans, Greeks, Romans, Northern Europe. The first advanced advanced Northern civilisation was that of the Vikings, and they rose to prominence in the Viking?Medieval Warm Period. the pattern of the bronze age to iron age followed a similar course. man only significantly devloped as a species when the interglacial, the Holocene, came along.

to take an example, there could be no concern that temperatures in Germany rose to that seen in Spain. After all Germans regularly holiday in Spain, and have a large expat community living in the Spanish Costas.

If your concern is not sea level rise, what concern do you have regarding AGW and why. The only significant negative that I can think of with a warming world is sea level rise, and as you rightly note this is very gradual and we have plenty of time to adapt in such places that require adaption (many will not).

“to take an example, there could be no concern that temperatures in Germany rose to that seen in Spain. After all Germans regularly holiday in Spain, and have a large expat community living in the Spanish Costas. ”

in the past, people mostly avoided climate change by moving. can you spot the problem?

in the past, people mostly avoided climate change by moving. can you spot the problem?

No, I cannot spot the problem. It appears that you have very little appreciation of humans, and their way of life.

We as a species evolved in the warmth of Ethiopia/the Sudan, and this is the type of climate that we as a species prefer. It is a very warm climate.

Most people do not appreciate the vast differences in temperatures even across their own country. For example, in the UK, the spread of temperature between South and North is typically 6 to 9 degC. The South East is the most populated part of the UK. No one in the South East is moving to the Midland because it is 2 to 3 degC cooler, or to the North East because it is 4 to 5 degC cooler, or Scotland because it is 6 to 9 degC cooler.

Southern Spain is about 10 degC warmer than England. No one from Southern Spain is moving to England because they do not like the temperatures of the Southern Spain.

When people retire, they move to the warmth of the Mediterranean Coast, or to Florida, or the Caribbean or similar places. No one retires to the cold of Alaska or Siberia.

Temperatures are not a problem for us as a species since we are so adaptable. This enables us inhabit cold climates which are otherwise wholly unsuitable to us. We put on clothes, a T shirt in the Summer, a jumper in the Winter, a coat when we go outside. We can adapt our environment build our own caves, ie., house, to protect us from the elements. We can then build our camp fires, ie., central heating, to protect us from the cold of the Winter. If we did not adapt ourselves, or our environment, we would quickly die of hypothermia outside a very few places such as Ethiopia/the Sudan. tropical rain forests, the Aboriginal homelands of Australia etc.

There is no significant problem with temperature per se. Further, it is not that the days are getting hotter, merely that the night is a little less cold. It also appears that Autumn and Winter is starting a little later, and Spring coming a little earlier. What a fantastic thing. This type of warming is most welcome.

Yet further, there appears to be all but no warming in the tropical/equatorial regions, but rather warming in higher latitudes, particularly in the Northern hemisphere mid to high latitude. Again a pattern of warming that is most welcome.

If this is what is global warming (and there is nothing global about it) then this is truly a Godsend and most welcome.

We will have better growing seasons, again a most welcome thing. Don’t forget in countries like Egypt, on the banks of the Nile, they can grow 6 crops a year. This was why Egypt dominated, and was the bread/grain/harvest capital of the West right the way through not only ancient Egyptian times but also during the Roman Empire. It still today dominates the Middle East region.

Ask yourself why birds migrate flying south in winter, grazing cattle come down from the highlands to the lowlands in winter. Why people retire to warm climates, and not to cold climates. Why in the warm Jurassic period animals and insects were so large. Why are all the large land based mammals found in warm climates. Why is the Arctic Fox so small, why do animals hibernate when it is cold, and not when it is warm. Why is there all but no life in Antarctica. Why were those living in the warmth of Egypt able to build the Pyramids whereas those people living in the cold of Wiltshire only able to build Stonehenge?

So what is your biggest problem with a warmer pllanet? Higher crop yields? A greening Earth? Fewer hurricanes and storms? Fewer species extinctions? Lower energy use (it takes more energy to heat than cool)?

“So what is your biggest problem with a warmer pllanet? Higher crop yields? A greening Earth? Fewer hurricanes and storms? Fewer species extinctions? Lower energy use (it takes more energy to heat than cool)? ”

yes. all effects of a temperature increase will be positive and 2000 countries fighting against the positive effects are all stupid while the one single country fighting for a temperature increase has a brilliant plan.

I guess you nailed it. Why not talk about skiing business?
In the real world, people have adapted to the climate that they live in for about 100 years. The idea that you change it and the main outcome is positive is moronic.

and 200 countries fighting against the positive effects are all stupid

Yes, the vast majority of the 200 countries are stupid. You should list the countries which would face difficulties if temperatures rose by 2 degC , those by 3 deg c, those by 4 deg C etc.

The fact is that for a country such as Germany, or the UK, or for that matter any mid latitude country in Northern Hemisphere, any high latitude country in the Northern Hemisphere a warmer climate would be a Godsend.

It is only a few countries such as those in the warmest areas of Middle East where a warmer climate may be more negative, but then again this region of the planet is not exhibiting very much warming at all.

As you correctly observe sea level rise is not a significant problem, at worst it is an inconvenience and will require some expense on a local/regional basis adapting.

Atolls are not threatened by sea level rise since Atolls have come out of the sea. The process of formation, is such that they grow upwards out of the sea. there threat, if any, is the extraction of ground water from the interior which causes the Attols to collapse. If you look at local tide guages it is clear that they are not being engulfed by rising sea level.

The Climate Change alarm is not about climate change, it is political about the destruction of advanced Western ecconomies, and redistribution of wealth from developed nations to developing nations.

Dear sod
I came across this recently and thought you might like to look at it.http://drtimball.com/2011/generalist/
It may have escaped your scrutiny. It would not perhaps appear on your search engine.
I come from a background which included the past changes in local climates and a small amount of physical geography. These subjects can be accessed these days on the internet if you widen your search criteria.

Politicians don’t bother as they have to observe party discipline.

News media take up political positions. So the rest of us including you are very much on our own and need to cultivate independent minds.

[…] A few years ago, a comprehensive analysis of selection bias in tide gauge measurements between 1807-2010 indicated that (a) sea levels are only rising at a rate of about 1 mm/yr (as of 2010), and (b) a total of 65% of the world’s tide gauges have recorded stable to falling sea levels. Out of a database of over 2,100 tide gauge measurements available from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level, NOAA has selected 240 tide gauges for their analysis of global-scale sea level rise. Of these, there are about 15 gauges that did not extend far enough into the last few decades (for example, Latvia, Antarctica, Ghana, Colombia), precluding a recent trend analysis. Of the remaining 225 tide gauges in the NOAA database, there are at least 100 located in regions where sea levels are stable (no significant change in either direction) or falling. A graphical illustration of these non-trend tide gauge measurements is provided below. click here to read the story, see graphs 13:49 […]

To say there is nothing new under the sun means there is nothing really new on the earth. All the activity of a man during his lifetime is lost in the grander scheme of things and will soon be forgotten (Ecclesiastes 1:11).

Tom very much the answer I believe. Lets face it – the only way sea level can rise is for more water to come from somewhere. that can only mean vast quantities of ice or snow melting somewhere since there is 70% ocean coverage of the sphere that would have to rise.

It is an interview with the boss of an energy company. Please learn to read!

“MARTIN MOORE: Well, I think CS Energy certainly has no intention of building any coal-fired power plants, ultra-centre super-critical or not.

And it would surprise me greatly if there was any more coal-fired technology was built in Australia.

I think when you look at the risk of the investment, you’re talking about $2 billion-plus investment up-front. These assets have a plant life of roughly 40 years, and so it’s a very, very big long-term bet.

So given the current uncertainty, I think it would be a very courageous board that would invest in coal-fired technology in Australia. ”

“It’s also unclear whether Adani has secured finance to build the mine.

Queensland Greens Senator Larissa Waters said the announcement was a “PR stunt to squeeze a $1 billion handout from Australian taxpayers”.”

hey, coal needs cheap money and no one wants to invest. My advice is still the same: ALL IN! Do not miss this opportunity. Invest today and then harvest coal for 50 or 100 years. Nothing could go wrong!

This development of a higher efficiency Coal fired power station looks to be of interest.
——–
For conventional coal-fired power generation, heat from coal burned at a temperature of around 700 C produces steam, which rotates a turbine.
CoolGen’s plant is totally different as it roasts coal at above 1,300 C while simultaneously blowing oxygen over it in order to convert the solid fuel into a gas. The system can drastically cut the discharge of CO2 because it uses gas from the roasted coal to generate power instead of burning the rock.
The plant also makes use of exhaust heat, generated when power is produced, for power generation. In addition, it has a fuel cell power generation facility that extracts hydrogen from some of the gas and forces a reaction with oxygen to create electricity.
Using three energy sources — gas, exhaust heat and hydrogen — the plant can maximize some 55% of coal’s energy for power generation, compared with up to 40% for conventional coal-fired power generation stations.
Renewed look

A serious problem confronts any researcher who looks into the question of tides and sea levels, especially when searching for that elusive concept known as `mean sea level’, (MSL) or “Zero Point of the Sea” (as Captain Sir James Clark Ross, the 19th century British Antarctic explorer, called it [36]). Not only is it difficult to determine true MSL at any one location, it is even more difficult to detect any changes occurring with that level. For example, imagine attempting to measure mean sea level on a Hawaiian surfing beach. Sea level and tides work over longer timescales, but the essence of the problem is much the same. Study of sea level has now taken on a more urgent importance due to the predictions of sea level rise which might result from any global warming resulting from increased emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) [23].

Climate modelers and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have predicted that one of the consequences of global warming will be rising sea levels due to thermal expansion of the ocean water mass and melting of non-polar glaciers [21] [23]. They claim the oceans have already risen 18 cm during the 20th century, an annual rate of 1.8 mm/yr. They further predict that the oceans will rise a further 50 cm approximately during the 21st century [45], an accelerated annual rate of 5 mm/yr [25].

These predictions are now taking on hysterical proportions by policy institutions such as the EPA [44], who readily adopt a worse than `worst case’ scenario. They claim that a 1 meter sea level rise will inundate 7,000 square miles of dry land, 50-80% of U.S. wetlands, and cost over $270 – 475 billion in the U.S. alone. As a final touch, they claim their estimates `are almost certainly too low’.